[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdajVu2H-9zX4gAEnHHR8gd=4jseabLGsHB=0CF1BKH-JA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 23:57:46 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
Nandor Han <nandor.han@...sala.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Discussions about the Letux Kernel
<letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org>, kernel@...a-handheld.com,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: gpio: pca953x: 24 bit expanders broken since v5.2-rc1
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 7:06 PM H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@...delico.com> wrote:
> Now, this was not a (visible) problem until patch
>
> 8b9f9d4dc511 regmap: verify if register is writeable before writing operations
>
> enforces to check the register number before invoking the
> callback pca953x_writeable_register(). pca953x_writeable_register()
> seems to know about REG_ADDR_AI (through reg & REG_ADDR_MASK) and
> accepts 0x88 as a valid register number.
>
> After the regmap patch the register is checked against
> pca953x_i2c_regmap.max_register before applying REG_ADDR_MASK
> and 0x88 is obviously beyond, explaining the symptom.
Can we simply bump the .max_register in
pca953x_i2c_regmap to 0xff for a quick fix with a comment
FIXME to figure it out the right way?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists